Mr. Speaker, today, during members' statements, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles once again made comments that are completely inappropriate and unacceptable under our Standing Orders. They are particularly unacceptable in light of your decision of Monday, May 31, barely two days ago. I will explain.

The comments in dispute, made by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, are as follows, and I quote: “For the Bloc leader and his colleagues, it is much easier to simply side with criminals—”. In your decision of May 31 about the acceptability of the term “token Quebecker”, you said: “It appears to the Chair that it is being used in a provocative manner time and time again in the House.”

I would like to explain my reasoning in order to prove that the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles is repeating comments in a provocative manner. As proof, I will quote the member's comments of April 24, 2009, during members' statements. He said: “—yes, the only ones—in this House to vote against families and, just recently, against children as well”, referring to the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Speaker, could you ask the member for Saint Boniface, the Calamity Jane of Saint-Boniface, to quiet down and put away her guns. She should put away her guns. We have names for some of the clowns on the other side.

On April 23, 2009, the same member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said: “Will the under-18s be sacrificed by the Bloc? Turning their backs on youth protection, that is the Bloc way.” I repeat: “Turning their backs on youth protection, that is the Bloc way.”

On April 22, 2009, the same member told us, during members' statements: “—we have reason to wonder whether it really wants to fight gun crime in Quebec.”

On Thursday, October 1, 2009, the member said: “the Bloc members have ... sided with the rights of criminals.

That is a very serious accusation. If our party and its members are said to side with criminals, does that mean that we are ourselves criminals? That is what one has to gather from what the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said.

On May 12, 2010, the same member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said, “Yesterday afternoon, the Bloc leader made his indifference towards victims of serious crime very clear.”

Those are totally unacceptable accusations which are inadmissible under our Standing Orders. I think I have provided sufficient proof of the accumulation of statements, and I have more.

On May 12 again, the same member said, “It is clear that the Bloc leader does not support Quebec... children who have been the victims of sexual assault.”

I think that is outside the scope of the debate. One can oppose ideas, but to accuse the leader and MPs from the Bloc Québécois to side with criminals is totally unacceptable, and you should rule on that, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to conclude my point of order with one last quote, even though I have many more. On April 20, 2010, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles suggested that “the only thing the Bloc Québécois with its leftist ideology knows how to do is oppose our government's justice and crime initiatives.”

Coming back to your ruling on the token Quebecker issue, Mr. Speaker. That was your ruling. I have noted the criteria you identified to determine whether a term was acceptable or not. I believe I have just clearly demonstrated that the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles has once again, in a provocative manner time and time again in the House, behaved as he has been behaving for several months, if not a few years.

Allow me to read an excerpt from O'Brien-Bosc, at page 618. It reads:

The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks—

—the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking; the person to whom the words at issue were directed; the degree of provocation; and, most importantly, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, look at the debates and ask yourself whether the statements by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles created disorder. That was the basis of your ruling on the token Quebecker comments.

My second last point is that the expression was perceived by all colleagues from the Bloc Québécois as an insult to the democratically elected members of the Bloc Québécois and their leader, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who, for the past 20 years, has always risen above the fray. He is a parliamentarian above reproach.

I will close by saying that the 308 hon. members of this House, regardless of their party, including you Mr. Speaker, were legitimately elected to defend ideas and principles. We cannot accept repeated insults like the ones made by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

We have a legitimate responsibility that has been given to us by the people. The Bloc Québécois MPs have been given a responsibility by the people of Quebec, by the people from the regions of Quebec, to represent them in Ottawa. We do not have to put up with such insults.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising because I think the House of Commons needs to hear the truth. Everything I have said in the House is the truth. The Bloc Québécois voted against a bill that would protect children and women in Canada. It voted against the human trafficking bill.

I heard the point of order raised by the Bloc Québécois member, which was supported by some Liberals who are insulting my career in law enforcement. I listened to the insults being thrown at me based on what I said. All I said was the truth. They voted against our children.

Mr. Speaker, could you remind them to keep quiet while I am raising my point of order?

These insults referred to my career as a policewoman. I have every right to be in the House of Commons. I do not have a gun, and implying that I am carrying one in the House of Commons is completely unparliamentary.

I demand an apology from the Bloc Québécois member for making completely ignorant comments about my career in law enforcement. I also want him to apologize for suggesting that I carry a gun in the House of Commons. It is absolutely appalling that he would suggest such a thing.

I would also like the Liberal Party to apologize for supporting the Bloc Québécois in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I get the feeling that things have gone way too far. I have fought the Bloc for 20 years, but I would never question its legitimacy because its members were elected by the public.

Are they relevant? We will find out during an election campaign. What I find unacceptable—and it is true of both sides—is that when these types of personal accusations are made, we call into question our own democratic institutions.

I would ask the Conservative Party to focus on thank-yous during S.O. 31 statements instead of making below-the-belt attacks and to stop calling into question the legitimacy of any members here.

Mr. Speaker, tempers are flaring. In his point of order, the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord used an expression that you deemed unparliamentary. You asked parliamentarians to refrain from using it in the House.

I would ask the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord to withdraw the expression he just used, that is “token Quebecker”. As a parliamentarian, I am asking him to withdraw his comments because we need to respect one another. Of course, his point of order strikes me more as a point of debate because when members oppose a bill that helps victims, it is a matter of interpretation. I will leave it to you.

I would like the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord to apologize to my colleague from Saint-Boniface, who is a women and a parliamentarian. He should also apologize to her as a francophone outside Quebec and a police officer. It is a lack of basic respect and I call on him to take the high road and apologize so that we can put an end to this unparliamentary behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, I rise here today as a member of this House, but also as a mother and grandmother. I rise as a citizen and as a woman. I rise in the House because when one took an oath as a police officer, one swore to tell the truth and not to manipulate the truth in any way. One took that oath. When we took the oath to serve our fellow citizens, we swore that we would serve them honestly and ethically. When we took the oath to become members of this House, because we were democratically elected, we did so honestly and legitimately.

Once again today, the member for Saint Boniface repeated this unfair notion that we do not consider our children, that we do not want our children to be protected, that we do not want women to be protected.

On behalf of all children, on behalf of all the women in this House, I rise to say that it is shameful, that such things should not be said and they should never be repeated. Our relevance and right to be here must never be questioned. and neither should the fact that women will always stand up and denounce any abuse of children.

What the member said is false. She used moral manipulation and moral blackmail, and I object to it.

Dean Del MastroConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a number of the interventions on this matter in the House. I found the conduct of the Bloc Québécois, and I think we will probably hear an intervention on this shortly, abhorrent during statements by members today.

However, members in the House often shout and speak loudly, but they speak the loudest when they vote. The fact is what the member for Saint Boniface has put forward is that when Bloc members had an opportunity to stand up for women and children and vote in favour of a bill to put an end to human smuggling, they voted against it and their constituents need to know that. All Canadians deserve to know that.

If those members are not proud of their record, that is a separate issue. They should not be proud of it. What they should do is stand in their place and vote for issues like putting an end to human smuggling, not vote against them. That is the real issue here. They are not proud of their own record.

Mr. Speaker, the premise in the House of Commons is members of Parliament, regardless of the party, have a right to vote on legislation before them, whether they think it is right or wrong or whether they think it is severely flawed.

To give an example, recently I introduced a bill in the House on disabled veterans and RCMP officers and the clawback of their pensions. All the Conservatives, except one, voted against it. Do I stand in the House and say that the Conservatives are dead against veterans, that they do not care about veterans and RCMP officers? No. I respect the right of members of the Conservative Party to vote the way they wish. I obviously think they were wrong, but I do not go to their ridings and I do not send ten percenters to their ridings saying that they are against veterans. The Conservatives refuse to admit that this is a democratic House of Commons.

Although I disagree with the Bloc Québécois on its vote, its members have the right to vote the way they want. To accuse them of being something that they are not is simply unconscionable, not democratic and not becoming of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, I do not often take the floor for this kind of debate. In fact, I believe this is the first time. I listened closely to what the members said. It all began with a statement that a Conservative Party member made before question period. Then several other things were brought into the conversation.

You have already ruled that a certain expression should no longer be used. I supported and applauded the member for Beauport—Limoilou when she raised the matter the first time. I feel that I must support the Bloc members, who say that when they voted against a particular bill, it was not because they were against protecting women and children. There was a legitimate difference of opinion on the value of adding a sentence, which is what the bill set out to do.

I find that people sometimes stray from the truth. I understand that this is political jousting, but members should all demonstrate decency and respect toward their colleagues in the House. That is what Canadians expect of us.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to ensure that members of all parties show greater respect for one another even if they disagree. I often disagree with the member for Saint Boniface, but that is no reason to call her names, as some members did. That is out of line. We all need to do a little better than that.

Mr. Speaker, I would just add that many times members in this House vote for or against specific legislation, not necessarily because they do or do not support it but perhaps, in some cases, because they feel that a very just cause can be improved by voting for better legislation.

I echo my colleagues who have said that just because members vote a particular way does not mean they deserve personal insults.

I do not agree with many of the things my Bloc Québécois colleagues say or the reason they are here, but every member of this House was elected by a majority of Canadians and therefore has a right to be here.

Every member here, no matter how we feel or how we vote, deserves to be treated with respect and civility, which is the only we can all show respect for this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I will add to this discussion by saying one thing. How did we get to this place and time? How did we get to this point where we are attacking each other to this degree of severity, across this floor, showing a lack of respect for both sides and for all members?

I have to calm myself down because I am very concerned with this. This is a watershed moment that we can step back from and move forward to restore some dignity in this place.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. In this country, we are entitled to our opinions. That means that the 308 members of this House can make comments and support positions.

Members may or may not agree with other members. I will never agree with the fact that the member for Saint Boniface wants the Liberal members to apologize because they do not think like the Conservatives. It is not acceptable that members of the House should not be entitled to their own opinions. We do not need to share the Conservative government's views all the time.

We represent four political parties, and we are entitled to be respected as individuals and as parliamentarians. I will never apologize for having opinions and standing up for the people I represent. I will never accept the Conservatives' position. Never!

Mr. Speaker, as one of the oldest members, I may be one of the calmest. As you know, the crux of the matter is the insults regularly hurled at the Bloc Québécois because, according to those uttering the insults, we vote against protecting children.

Many hon. members would know exactly what the bill was about and might change their mind, as might you Mr. Speaker, if they bothered to read the entire bill and not just the title. It takes two minutes and if they read it, they would see that the bill is not about protecting children. That is never mentioned in the bill. They would see that it is about the exploitation of persons under the age of 18. The Bloc Québécois voted against the bill because it felt that anyone exploiting young people under the age of 18, in one way or another, does not deserve a minimum of five years, which is appropriate for those who exploit children.

Basing an opinion on the title alone is what misleads hon. members. Having not read the bill, they hurl insults that they would refrain from using if they had read the bill with a modicum of intellectual honesty.

I hope we can deal with this once and for all, Mr. Speaker, because it is very insulting to be told over and over again that we vote against the protection of children, that we are against protecting children, and that when we defend the rights of everyone in a legal system we are defending criminals' rights, and it triggers reactions that can be just as insulting, I agree. However, I have always refrained from reacting that way.

Mr. Speaker, I will keep this extremely brief. I have made this mini-speech many times in the past but I would urge all colleagues from both sides of the House to consider tempering their remarks in the days and weeks ahead. We still have three weeks to go before the House is scheduled for the summer recess.

As House leader for the government, I certainly try to work co-operatively with my colleagues on the other side of the House to accomplish what we have been sent here by our constituents to accomplish, which is to govern our nation. I would suggest that we all take a breath here and consider tempering our remarks over the days and weeks ahead because the summer weather will get hot and I am sure it will get warmed up in this House.

I have always respected the fact that this is a place of lively debate. When I listened to my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois on his question of privilege or point of order about what was said during statements today, I did not hear one thing that, in some people's opinion, would not have been the truth. I did not hear one thing that was unparliamentary, except what he said, in my estimation, when he was hollering out across the way Calamity Jane, personally attacking a colleague by calling her the name “Calamity Jane”.

I do not remember anything my colleague said during his comments that personally attacked an individual member. They might dispute what has been said, and that is their right as members of Parliament to dispute in lively debate what is said, but it really does damage to my colleague from the Bloc's argument that he rose about insults when he, in turn, in the middle of his point of order, called my colleague Calamity Jane, a personal insult.

I rise to point out that we want to always remember to temper our remarks because what is viewed as insults by some obviously is viewed as debate by others.